You can’t simulate reality on a classical computer because computers are symbolic and reality is sub-symbolic.
If you simulate a reality, even from within a simulated reality, your simulation must be constructed from the atoms of base reality.
The reason to trust Roger Penrose is right about consciousness is the same as 1: consciousness is a subsymbolic phenomenon and computers are symbolic.
Symbolic consciousness may be possible, but symbolic infinity is countable while subsymbolic infinity is not.
If “subsymbolic” does not exist, then your article is spot on!
If “subsymbolic” exists, then we ought to expect the double exponential progress to happen on quantum computers, because they access uncountable infinities.
You can’t simulate reality on a classical computer because computers are symbolic and reality is sub-symbolic.
Neither one of us experience “fundamental reality”. What we’re experiencing is a compression and abstraction of the “real world”. You’re asserting that computers are not capable of abstracting a symbolic model that is close to our reality—despite existence proofs to the contrary.
We’re going to have to disagree on this one. Their model might not be identical to ours, but it’s close enough that we can communicate with each other and they can understand symbols that were encoded by conscious beings.
2. If you simulate a reality, even from within a simulated reality, your simulation must be constructed from the atoms of base reality.
I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make. We don’t know what’s really going on in “base reality” or how far away we are from “base reality”. We do know that atoms are mostly empty space. For all we know they could be simulations. That’s all pure speculation. There are those that believe everthing we observe, including the behavior of atoms, is optimized for survival and not “truth”.
You can’t simulate reality on a classical computer because computers are symbolic and reality is sub-symbolic.
If you simulate a reality, even from within a simulated reality, your simulation must be constructed from the atoms of base reality.
The reason to trust Roger Penrose is right about consciousness is the same as 1: consciousness is a subsymbolic phenomenon and computers are symbolic.
Symbolic consciousness may be possible, but symbolic infinity is countable while subsymbolic infinity is not.
If “subsymbolic” does not exist, then your article is spot on!
If “subsymbolic” exists, then we ought to expect the double exponential progress to happen on quantum computers, because they access uncountable infinities.
Bion
That doesn’t stop you simulating physics!
Neither one of us experience “fundamental reality”. What we’re experiencing is a compression and abstraction of the “real world”. You’re asserting that computers are not capable of abstracting a symbolic model that is close to our reality—despite existence proofs to the contrary.
We’re going to have to disagree on this one. Their model might not be identical to ours, but it’s close enough that we can communicate with each other and they can understand symbols that were encoded by conscious beings.
I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make. We don’t know what’s really going on in “base reality” or how far away we are from “base reality”. We do know that atoms are mostly empty space. For all we know they could be simulations. That’s all pure speculation. There are those that believe everthing we observe, including the behavior of atoms, is optimized for survival and not “truth”.